It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

For Some Smokers, Even Home Is Off Limits

page: 3
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
remember ATS rules guys
no talk of substance abuse!


Indeed. But I must wonder... if the government were to succeeed one day in making tobacco illegal, would ATS members be able to ever speak of their packs of Marlboros or Winstons here?

Please don't misunderstand this as a protest against ATS. It certainly is not.

Drugs are indeed a problem and by stifling talk of them, we grow both wiser and are less likely to make a mistake. Denying ignorance... in this case, is to deny existence. What we do not acknowledge cannot hurt us.

But I am more curious because tobacco has been a staple of western culture for over a century. In fact, we packed smokes for soldiers in the C&K Rations boxes for decades. Do we now subscribe to the theory that, because the insurance industry is funding fat this anti-smoking campaign, that we can suddenly turn an entire culture away in a matter of of a few years?

Yes, smoking is bad for you. No argument.

But like seatbelts, it IS... or should be, a personal choice. The conscientious smoker who does not partake in public situations, is no threat to western democracy.... just as the private citizen who chooses NOT to buckle up is no threat to anyone but him/her self and the same insurance industry that is looking for every penny it can save despite your desire for personal freedom.

Ahem.

Freedom is fragile. Handle with care.


Edit: typos







[edit on 17-11-2009 by redoubt]




posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 01:33 PM
link   
the weirdest thing is that the new rules don't affect existing tenants -> so i guess their smoke isn't dangerous?

one day we'll all be getting full searches as we leave retail stores because the precedent will be set that we "agree" to that by shopping in those stores.



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
reply to post by spliff4020
 


Ya but this is not about you, it's about others
2nd hand smoking@!!


I think this is about the rights of people who don't partake, be it non smoking or what have you. Personally I can't wait until they ban perfume, fragrant makeup, scented deodorant, scented shampoo's and conditioners, scented cleaning supplies and all manner of indoor plants and indoor pets.

You see, I have allergies, and like many many other people with allergies, (a genuine medical issue) the scents of these "personal enhancements" cause some level of discomfort. Now you might think, they will never do that, but not so long ago the same was said of smoking. Some allergies set off asthma, and can be fatal, so any argument that it's not a terminal thing is moot.

I also can't wait until they bar fat people from eating in public. I find it revolting to watch some 350 pound person eating in public. Then there are the people that don't dress appropriately, I think there should be a dress code for when people are in public....Do you see where this is going? The point of all of this is that society should not interfere in what you do in your own home. There are limits to when socially responsible conflicts with the rights of the person in their own home.

I wasn't kidding about the perfume though, all perfume should be banned as it inflicts it's noxious fumes on everyone in proximity and gets into furniture etc etc..

..EX



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 01:55 PM
link   
You know,
It's like many other 'movements' that happen.

They preach health, they cry about secondhand smoke. They show kids pictures of lungs filled with coal dust (yeah, those weren't cigarette lungs, they were miners lungs) and they weep for those who chose to make their own decisions. It hasn't changed much.

But now..............

It's become fashionable.

It's trendy and cool. It goes along with the new green cult and the arrogant idea that we can force people to live the way we want.
"Take away their rights. Everybody's doing it."

Did you know that most abortion rights activists don't smoke and are of the opinion that you shouldn't have the right to do so either? They will kill babies by the millions but won't let you have a smoke because it might be bad for someone.

It's not actually germane to the thread but it illustrates the twisted logic these people use.

As long as it's fashionable and everybody thinks it's cool then we can take away the right's of others.

That's what's running the world nowdays.....Fashion.

I'm not a smoker, but if I was I still wouldn't have a problem blowing a big ole lungfull of cigar smoke in the face of the first prissy twit that looked at me funny for doing it.

I might just poke him in they eye for being a nosy little pup as well.

I'm gonna have a beer.

Anybody for prohibition?

No?

Oh yeah, that didn't work out so well either.



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 10:59 PM
link   
If (God forbid) I were to ever lose my doublewide on my little acre of Texas and had to move into an apartment, and I got a neighbor that had an addiction to Ranch Style beans, I would sue!

You get my drift right? That would be smelly CO2 emmission and we all know CO2 is the global warming demon and that would infringe on my right to clean air, now if I could just cover that up with a good ol' healthy Marlboro and we call it even.........?



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 11:45 PM
link   
Smoking cigarettes is suicide. I have a very difficult time understanding why people continue to smoke cigarettes knowing full well that they are destroying their own health (and the health of others around them) while at the same time handing their hard-earned money over to big tobacco and government taxes.



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


people aren't allowed to make choices any more. haha. "No one should have to choose between health insurance and 7 packs of $9 cigarrettes a week."



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 02:03 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Outstanding post. I particularly like this concept you mention:

"It would seem that by segregating ourselves from certain 'contaminants' at early ages, we weaken our own immune systems response to such contaminants. True, the studies above do not specifically address cigarette smoke; however the principle is the same. If one does not exercise one's immunity when it is developing, one's immunity will not function as strong as if it were exercised.

I'm a smoker, and enjoy nothing more than a smoke and a beer. My parents, who both smoked round me when I was a kid, have both stopped mid-life - but both are living healthily and happily in their old age.

But that point in your post, is most interesting, and certainly has truth in it. It's better to be exposed to toxicity in mild forms, as well as germs/bacteria, at an early age to build up resistance.

If you lived in a bubble like bubble boy from birth to say round 65, then got released out onto the streets, no doubt you'd be dead within 12 months from some common disease you were never exposed to - but now your body would be too weak, and shocked, to fight those incoming nasties.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 03:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Silcone Synapse
 





In the UK you can be prosecuted for smoking in your own house if someone from the council arrives for whatever reason within half an hour of you smoking.

First I heard of this can you provide some info, I amazed.

What pisses me off is that it's ok for my kids to suck in the exhaust fumes of a bus or eat poison crap at school, but it's not ok for an adult to go outside in the not so fresh air to have a cigarette .

There's no way I'll try and justify smoking around kids or anyone else but what I do i my home is my business the hell with the lot of them.




posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 03:17 AM
link   
reply to post by cloudbreak
 





If you lived in a bubble like bubble boy from birth to say round 65, then got released out onto the streets, no doubt you'd be dead within 12 months from some common disease you were never exposed to - but now your body would be too weak, and shocked, to fight those incoming nasties.


Hm, that's food for thought when you think of it we do live in a bubble, one great big one.

Think it's possible that our bodies could develop a resistance to smoking over time ? After all people who live in higher altitudes learned to live with less air etc.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 03:25 AM
link   
reply to post by moocowman
 


They are taking us over.

They are dictating the rules.

Who are they?



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 05:00 AM
link   
reply to post by moocowman
 


Yes I don't see why not - the body is obviously very resilient, and builds up resistance to all manner of disease and physical ailments or forces.

Perhaps smoking is no different?

Although it would be very controversial, maybe being exposed to smaller amounts of second-hand smoke as an infant is actually a major health benefit?
It would be much like anything - for example, a child who walks around outdoors bare-footed for the first 17 years of his life would have very hardy, thick-skinned feet, able to withstand heated surfaces, colder surfaces, and sharp, uneven ground.

If a second person had never walked barefoot a day in his life...compare those two people how they would fare on a walk through the bush/forest together as 18 year-olds.

Perhaps it's not a good analogy, but...it would make sense that getting the body used to a substance at an early age, would help in strengthening the body's defences to any ill-effects of that substance as the human body develops.

I'm going to call up my parents tomorrow and thank them for smoking in my presence when I was a kid



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by coastalite

I have a very difficult time understanding why people continue to smoke cigarettes knowing full well that they are destroying their own health (and the health of others around them) while at the same time handing their hard-earned money over to big tobacco and government taxes.

I have a very difficult time understanding how you can even make that argument with a straight face. First, people like you allow the government to get away with raising taxes to astronomical levels on a product (some even lobbied for the increases directly), then you ccomplain that we're giving the government too much money?

Ohhhhh, the irony.....

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by moocowman

I'd say more than just possible... the word 'likely' comes to mind.

Think about this: a vaccine contains the virus it is supposed to protect against, in either a weakened or sometimes dead state. It works by exposing our bodies to the disease in such small amounts that our bodies are not overwhelmed by the disease, but still are able to adapt to fight it off.

It's the same principle.

Oh... my... GOD! I just agreed with moocowman! Someone, help me! I'm meeeellltttiiiinnnnggggggggggg.......(
)

TheRedneck



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join